|
“ It is settled law that, a discretion that is vested in a decision-maker in a democratic society such as ours must be exercised on proper consideration as to the relevant facts and the law There is no such a thing as unfettered discretion Good reasons must be given for an exercise of discretion A failure to do so may leave open the floodgate for all sorts of allegations, including allegations that the discretion was exercised for ulterior motives For examples of authorities on this point, see The Application of Moge Enga and Kuipi Group in the Matter of a Decision of the Minister for Lands Concerning Section 30 Allotment 7 Mt Hagen
|
[1995] PNGLR 246
|
|
Papua New Guinea
|
circa 1995
|
PacLII
|
|
 21 
|
|
Emas Estate Development Pty Ltd v John Mea
|
[1993] PNGLR 215
|
|
Papua New Guinea
|
circa 1993
|
PacLII
|
|
138
|
|
Godfrey Niggints vHenry Tokamv
|
[1993] PNGLR 66
|
|
Papua New Guinea
|
circa 1993
|
PacLII
|
|
46
|
|
and An Application of the NCDIC
|
[1987] PNGLR 339
|
|
Papua New Guinea
|
circa 1987
|
PacLII
|
|
23
|
|
Re Gegeyo v Minister for Lands and Physical Planning
|
[1987] PNGLR 331
|
|
Papua New Guinea
|
circa 1987
|
PacLII
|
|
29
|
|
Wari v Ramoi and Dibela
|
[1986] PNGLR 112
|
|
Papua New Guinea
|
circa 1986
|
PacLII
|
|
20
|
|
Mudge v Secretary for Lands
|
[1985] PNGLR 387
|
|
Papua New Guinea
|
circa 1985
|
PacLII
|
|
185
|
|
R v Sussex Justice; Ex parte McCarthy
|
[1942] 1 KB 256
|
|
United Kingdom
|
circa 1942
|
LexisNexis / Westlaw
|
|
9
|
|
General Electric Co Ltd v Price Commission
|
1 CR 1
|
|
|
circa 1995
|
|
|
52
|
